SNW From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 24 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
I have a picture of a preserved McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom on static display that I would like to submit but I'm a bit confused about its serial # and hence its history.
It's painted up as 155894, WD-00 from VFMA-212 however all sources of information that I can find suggest this airframe was delivered to the UK RAF in 1984 and was dumped then later scapped in '96.
Is it ok to submit this to the database with the above serial - as displayed? I just don't like not knowing if it is the actual airframe or a different airframe that has been reassigned for display. The pictures were taken earlier this year so it's still on display.
Any suggestions or further information would be much appreciated.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
I believe that a.net policy is that aircraft should be uploaded under the registration/serial worn, whether fake or not. Of course, if you know the construction number you should list the true construcion number, not the one associated with the fake serial. In the remarks you can give the true identity, or say you're not sure.
Could the database editors comment on this? Some people are uploading such aircraft under their true serial.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
You are spot on, Peter.
In the case of falsely painted aircraft, the registration painted on the aircraft should be used as the reg, even though it is not the real one. The same applies for any codes - use what is on the airframe.
The construction number should be the TRUE construction number for that airframe, not the one that matches the fake registration. Of course if you don't know the true identity, you won't be able to write in the true c.n.
I would always recommend that uploaders write the true registration, if it is known, in the remarks somehow, as it avoids confusion for the viewer (and the editors!).
This Hurricane photo shows the correct way to handle such problems:
LF345 / ZA-P (cn unknown) Painted as LF345, this is actually LF658, one of six Hurricanes acquired after WW2 by the Belgians from the RAF. The Belgian AF flew three - this was one of the three gound-based instructional airframes. Displayed since 1963 in the fabulous Belgique Musée Royal de l'Armée et d'Histoire Militaire.
Edited to include remark text from photo in this post.
SNW From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Thanks Peter and Jim for the very informative and helpful responses.
The construction number of the restored aircraft is unknown.
Given your advice a comment such as this should be ok:
"Originally delivered to the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1984 as ZE364 and upgraded to a F-4J(UK), available information indicates it was scrapped in 1996. The origins of this restored airframe are unknown."
Whappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1): I believe that a.net policy is that aircraft should be uploaded under the registration/serial worn, whether fake or not. Of course, if you know the construction number you should list the true construcion number, not the one associated with the fake serial. In the remarks you can give the true identity, or say you're not sure.